Zuloaga et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
| Miguel Zuloaga, Miguel Angel Zuloga, M. Zuloaga and Claudia Zuloaga |
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trust 2006-NC3, DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, Brock & Scott Law PLLC, Amy K Recla, Mollie A Hair, Jimmy Edwards Bar, Jennifer Leal, Shaib Y Rios Bar, Eugena Moulton, Orlando Deuca, Brandi Nicole Wilson, Natalie Deluca, Joseph Paggi, David Adamian, Kimberly George, Matthew Marks Bar, Ivan D Ivanov, Nicole W Giuliano and C.G.T.J. INVESTMENTS LLC |
| 1:2023cv20140 |
| January 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Roy K Altman |
| Lisette M Reid |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
PAPERLESS ORDER denying again #15 the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion"). Once again, the Plaintiffs have failed to explain why their motion is an "emergency" matter within the meaning of the Rules. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(d)(1) ("A filer requesting emergency action must... set forth in detail the nature of the emergency, the date by which a ruling is necessary, and the reason the ruling is needed by the stated date."). Providing a certification that the matter is a "true emergency" is not enough. The motion must actually qualify as an emergency. In their last filing (which we denied on the merits), the Plaintiffs told us the 11th Judicial Circuit would issue a Writ of Possession for their home on February 1, 2023. See Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 13]. Last we checked, that date has come and gone -- and the Plaintiffs have provided no new basis for the "emergency" nature of their Motion. "The unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion may result in sanctions." S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). So far, we've exercised our discretion not to impose sanctions. But if the Plaintiffs choose to file their "emergency" motion for a third time, we will impose sanctions. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 2/2/2023. (ema)
|
| Filing 15 EMERGENCY MOTION for Reconsideration for Injunction with Affidavit in Support Authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988(a), Florida DTPA, and Common-Law Equity: re 14 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, by Claudia Zuloaga, Miguel Zuloaga. (pc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2023: #1 Affidavit) (pc). |
|
Filing 14
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #13 the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (the "Motion"). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate "(1) [that there is] a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the nonmovant; and (4) that the entry of the relief would serve the public interest." Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). The first factor, "a substantial likelihood of success on the merits," is "generally the most important" of the four. Id. at 1232. Because the Plaintiffs have almost no likelihood of success on the merits, we DENY their Motion. The Plaintiffs ask that we "declare and adjudge that the Judges and Clerks of the Florida Civil Courts, as state actors, over the past four years have decided, arbitrarily and capriciously, to uphold an illegitimate and corrupt mortgage finance system based on securitization of notes, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 as well as all relevant Florida Statutes." Motion at 5. Although they frame their claim as an action under 1981, what they really want is for us to nullify the 11th Judicial Circuit's "unlawful[] foreclose[ure]" of their home. Id. at 2; see also id. at 9-10 ("[Plaintiffs] request the court for a Restraining Order enjoining and restraining the named Defendants from foreclosure on Plaintiff on the subject property[.]"). But we can't do that. See Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2021) ("[Rooker-Feldman] bars all appeals of state court judgments -- whether the plaintiff admits to filing a direct appeal of the judgment or tries to call the appeal something else."); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine "is a jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments." Alvarez v. Att'y Gen. of Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012). Under Rooker-Feldman, "a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state court judgment in a United States District Court based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). The Plaintiffs' home was foreclosed on back in 2021. See Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure in Rem, Case No. 2014-003531-CA-01 (Nov. 18, 2021). And the property was sold on August 17, 2022. See Certificate of Sale, Case No. 2014-003531-CA-01 (Aug. 17, 2022). So, we're dealing with a final state-court judgment -- which we cannot overturn. The Writ of Possession, scheduled to issue on February 1, 2023, is simply a necessary consequence of that judgment. See Order for Writ of Possession [ECF No. 13-1] at 2. The Plaintiffs, in short, are "directly challeng[ing] a state court loss," Behr, 8 F.4th at 1211 -- and so, Rooker-Feldman appears to bar their claim. To the extent the Plaintiffs are asking us to "stay proceedings in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court for case no. 2014-003531-CA-01," we can't grant them that relief either. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized a "longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings." Because a Writ of Possession is an order that is "uniquely in furtherance of the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions," Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 70 (2013), we would very likely abstain in this case -- even if Rooker-Feldman didn't apply. The Motion is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 1/31/2023. (ema)
|
| Filing 13 EMERGENCY MOTION for Reconsideration for Injunctive Relief by Claudia Zuloaga, Miguel Zuloaga. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(pc) Modified text on 1/24/2023 (pc). |
|
Filing 12
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #11 the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). The Plaintiffs haven't certified that their motion is an "emergency" matter within the meaning of the Rules. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(d)(1) ("The filer must certify that the matter is a true emergency by including the following certification before the motion's signature block[.]"). Nor have they explained why their motion "will become moot if not ruled on in seven (7) days." Ibid. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 1/19/2023. (ema)
|
| Filing 11 EMERGENCY Motion for Injunctive Relief by Claudia Zuloaga, Miguel Zuloaga. (pc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/19/2023: #1 Exhibit) (pc). |
| Filing 10 Summons Issued as to David Adamian, Brock & Scott Law PLLC, C.G.T.J. INVESTMENTS LLC, DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, Natalie Deluca, Orlando Deuca, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Kimberly George, Nicole W Giuliano, Mollie A Hair, Jimmy Edwards Bar, Jennifer Leal, Matthew Marks Bar, Eugena Moulton, Joseph Paggi, Amy K Recla, Shaib Y Rios Bar, Brandi Nicole Wilson. (pc) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF FILING- Copy of 11th Judicial Circuit Court's Order for Writ of Posession, by Claudia Zuloaga. (pc) |
| Filing 8 JUDICIAL NOTICE by Claudia Zuloaga. (pc) Modified text on 1/19/2023 (mr1). |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Joseph Gerard Paggi, III on behalf of David Adamian, DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, Natalie Deluca, Orlando Deuca, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Kimberly George, Joseph Paggi. Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party David Adamian(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party DeLuca Law Group, PLLC(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party Natalie Deluca(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party Orlando Deuca(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party Deutsche Bank National Trust Company(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party Kimberly George(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Gerard Paggi, III added to party Joseph Paggi(pty:dft). (Paggi, Joseph) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER in Cases with Multiple Defendants. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 1/13/2023. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 5 CORRECTED Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman and Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (scn) |
| Filing 4 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 1/12/2023 in the amount of $ 402.00, receipt number FLS263046. (vt) |
| Filing 3 Consent by Pro Se Litigant (Non-Prisoner) Claudia Zuloaga, Miguel Zuloaga to receive Notices of Electronic Filing at email address: czuloaga01@gmail.com (scn) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman and Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (scn) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 402.00, filed by Miguel Zuloaga, Claudia Zuloaga. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibits)(scn) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
